Amazon may raise Prime prices.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by John F

There are a lot of cheap services available, if you buy a lot of them, they add up. Simple math.



They already have free shipping, you don't need prime for that.



I don't think you need Prime to access Amazon movies.



Here in the U.S., there are no free rentals. If you have a Kindle (or Fire?), they have some additional benefits.



Why would I consider this a plus if I don't use it. And I believe it is limited?



I'd imagine a lot of people with a decent job won't be getting Amazon Prime?

What cheap services? Do you mind naming them? I'm talking about USA by the way.

Yep, I did the math. At 8 bucks average, if you have Hulu, Netlfix and Prime, you will pay 25 per month. That's 300 dollars a year.

With regular cable TV, you pay around 100 dollars per month, that's 1200 a year. So you are saving around 900 dollars if you combine NetFlix with prime.

And no, you don't need Prime to get movies, but you save a lot, as some of the movies are free for Prime members. So if you watch a few, in a couple of months you will exceed the amount of money in movies that you could end paying if you get Prime since the very beginning. If you don't watch movies, then that doesn't apply to you.

There is no other cheap and good streaming service in USA that is better than Netflix or Amazon. Hulu is for TV shows, but if you want to include Hulu, then we only have three, that's it.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

The ads on Hulu Plus wouldn't be so bad if there were only one or two breaks per one-hour (42 minute) show, but some shows have as many as 4 or 5, same as broadcast, and I just find that extremely annoying. Not to mention they repeat the same ads in the same show, even more annoying. I have a real problem with ads being on a pay service -- you either get me to pay or get to show me ads, but not both, thanks.

You are right about.

However, the ads keep the service at lower price. I just read an article few months ago about it. Hulu management was questioned about the same. They actually thought about getting rids of ads, but the high costs of royalties would force them to increase the fees. Hulu streams TV shows, some of them that aired a few hours ago, so the cost for them to get copyrights is also high.

I'm guessing, but without ads, Hulu may increase fees to 10 bucks, maybe more, which will cause some customers to leave.

And you won't believe this :-) ... my wife likes the ads. She says it feels like you're watching TV and you still have Cable. She was reluctant to go full streaming at he beginning. But she now likes Roku and the streaming services we have.

[DiapDealer]

I love Hulu+
Ads and all. Their Roku channel is designed well and very easy to navigate. They even email me when new shows I watch are added to my queue (or about to expire). Streams well; no hiccups or rebuffering.

While I was typing this, I got an email that last night's "The Blacklist" episode will be waiting for me when I get home.

Very fair price for the service rendered in my humble opinion.

[leebase]

I'm the type of customer Amazon Prime was aimed at. I buy frequently enough that over a year, I clearly get back my $79 price and will at $99 too. HOWEVER, now that I have Prime, I shop MORE because shipping price is no longer a factor. I don't have to worry about something adding up to $25. I need a bottle of Excedrin? I go buy it from Amazon (after price checking with my local Walgreens generic brand).

The movies/tv shows are just a "plus". I like and pay for Netflix.

[John F]

Originally Posted by jocampo

What cheap services? Do you mind naming them? I'm talking about USA by the way.

Yep, I did the math. At 8 bucks average, if you have Hulu, Netlfix and Prime, you will pay 25 per month. That's 300 dollars a year. ...

I was using the term services loosely.

I was thinking of the general attitude of "it's only XXX, that's cheap, who cares". Things like coffee, beer, soda, water, snacks, movies, ...

Some other "services" that may/may not be related to Amazon:

Redbox streaming, B&N membership, spotify, pandora, XBox live, PSN (whatever their subscription service is)...

... With regular cable TV, you pay around 100 dollars per month, that's 1200 a year. So you are saving around 900 dollars if you combine NetFlix with prime. ...

Do we really want to get into a cutting the cord debate?

If your paying $100 a month for regular cable, you are paying waaaayyyyy to much. (Man it easy giving opinions on other peoples spending habits.)

... There is no other cheap and good streaming service in USA that is better than Netflix or Amazon. Hulu is for TV shows, but if you want to include Hulu, then we only have three, that's it.

As far as which is better, netflix or Hulu, I'm currently watching Hulu a lot more than Netflix, so I'll say Hulu is better. And I would say that Hulu is much better than Amazon Prime Videos, again, because I use Hulu a lot more than Prime. Prime is very limited in what it decides to include (all three services are limited, IMO).

And I'll sum it up by saying... if you aren't going to use the "services", they are all overpriced (0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0); No matter how many 0s you add up, the total is still 0.

and it all comes back to me taking exception to your initial statement:

Now, to the topic. 99 per year for Prime is still a bargain. It's around 8 dollars per month. I can't imagine any person in USA, with a decent job, that can't afford that. Of course, you can argue that and say you have different priorities, fair enough, but still, 8 dollars a month is not a very expensive proposition giving the case of the added value: free shipping, access to movies, some ebooks free to rent, online music storage.
...

Does it matter what any person can afford, it is what they value.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by jocampo

I'm guessing, but without ads, Hulu may increase fees to 10 bucks, maybe more, which will cause some customers to leave.

Maybe they should have a more expensive ad-free option, then. They'd have a better chance of getting me to pay that than they would the lower price with ads.

And you won't believe this :-) ... my wife likes the ads. She says it feels like you're watching TV and you still have Cable.

I'm glad it works for her. But I find them extremely intrusive and annoying at the rate of 1 break per 8 minutes of show, which is why I have a DVR for my regular TV service.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

Maybe they should have a more expensive ad-free option, then. They'd have a better chance of getting me to pay that than they would the lower price with ads.

They clearly don't seem to need the "We won't stand for no stinkin' commercials" crowd. If they did, they'd have probably offered the premium commercial-free version already.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

They clearly don't seem to need the "We won't stand for no stinkin' commercials" crowd. If they did, they'd have probably offered the premium commercial-free version already.

It's probably a matter of them needing the advertisers A LOT more, since they actually provide the bulk of the money needed to produce the content.

If that is so, then it would make far more sense to NOT charge subscribers anything at all. That's the other-side solution to "I will not pay AND watch ads" and it has worked (in the US) for broadcast TV for decades.

That being said, note we lost that battle years ago, about when they started showing commercials in movie theaters in addition to film previews...$12 a viewing plus a Coke commercial....

ApK

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's probably a matter of them needing the advertisers A LOT more, since they actually provide the bulk of the money needed to produce the content.

If that is so, then it would make far more sense to NOT charge subscribers anything at all.

That would only make sense if they didn't have a fairly decent subscriber base who seem perfectly WILLING to pay (ads and all), no? Why offer for free what people will pay for?

Why is it so hard for people to see that Hulu already seems to have a business model that's working for them AND their subscribers? There's no need to "fix" anything. It's viable as is--whether or not YOU (rhetorical) happen see the value.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How slow is slow? You can stream standard-def movies with a download speed of about 1.5MBit/sec; high-def with about 3MBit/sec.

Slower than 1.5.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That would only make sense if they didn't have a fairly decent subscriber base who seem perfectly WILLING to pay (ads and all), no? Why offer for free what people will pay for?

Why is it so hard for people to see that Hulu already seems to have a business model that's working for them AND their subscribers? There's no need to "fix" anything. It's viable as is--whether or not YOU (rhetorical) happen see the value.

You're absolutely correct.

I don't have to like it though.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pl001

You're absolutely correct.

I don't have to like it though.

And I'm perfectly OK with you (or anybody) not liking it.

I simply object to the "if I don't like it then they must be doing it wrong" vibes I pick up on here and there. There's plenty of successful business models out there that don't work for me personally. Bully for them!

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by John F

I was using the term services loosely.



I was thinking of the general attitude of "it's only XXX, that's cheap, who cares". Things like coffee, beer, soda, water, snacks, movies, ...



Some other "services" that may/may not be related to Amazon:



Redbox streaming, B&N membership, spotify, pandora, XBox live, PSN (whatever their subscription service is)...



Do we really want to get into a cutting the cord debate?



If your paying $100 a month for regular cable, you are paying waaaayyyyy to much. (Man it easy giving opinions on other peoples spending habits.)





As far as which is better, netflix or Hulu, I'm currently watching Hulu a lot more than Netflix, so I'll say Hulu is better. And I would say that Hulu is much better than Amazon Prime Videos, again, because I use Hulu a lot more than Prime. Prime is very limited in what it decides to include (all three services are limited, IMO).



And I'll sum it up by saying... if you aren't going to use the "services", they are all overpriced (0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0); No matter how many 0s you add up, the total is still 0.



and it all comes back to me taking exception to your initial statement:





Does it matter what any person can afford, it is what they value.

I disagree.

Average Cable service with taxes is 100 dollars. Basic package, which is not HD and doesn't include major sport and movie channels, it's about 50 dollars, and that's crap, sorry.

Redbox , B&N? Seriously? lol ....

By the way, Hulu is more focus to TV shows. You may like it better than Amazon or NetFlix if you like TV shows and series more than movies. Pretty much all the movies you can find at Hulu, can be found at Amazon or Netflix as well.

[John F]

Originally Posted by jocampo

I disagree.

Average Cable service with taxes is 100 dollars. Basic package, which is not HD and doesn't include major sport and movie channels, it's about 50 dollars, and that's crap, sorry.

why are you figuring in sports channels? I'm getting a ton of movies channels, sports, HD, watch tons of TV shows when they are actually originally aired, ...

For a lot less than $100. I do have satelite though. But pricing cable, it would be similar (even less than satelite).

Redbox , B&N? Seriously? lol ....

If you want recent releases, than Redbox, or add another $8 dollars for netflix disc rental. For some one focusing so much on movies, Netflix Amazon, and hulu is extremely limited for movies.

And what is wrong with Redbox Instant (i'm genually interested)?

As far as B&N... Sure, why not consider it? Again, it is another thing that is very cheap (only $3 a month, surely everyone with a good job can afford that.)

[taosaur]

I recently did the "gift subscription hack" to re-up for Prime at the current price. Between Christmas and one or two projects per year, plus the odd item here and there, the shipping alone ends up being worth it. The video used to be worthless on a PC, but has improved some, and I also picked up a PS3 last year which has taken over as my main streaming box. Prime does cover some of Netflix's blind spots in TV and movies, and I've been able to share the video with family on XBox 360s.

I've just recently picked up Hulu+ and let it go beyond the free week, but it's still on probation. Commercials are not that big a deal when watching TV, offering a little break to get up and take care of assorted business, but I cannot imagine watching any of those Criterion films all chopped up with Samsung and Lexus ads. Given that there are zero currently airing shows I'm actually caught up with, the faster availability of certain shows doesn't do much for me, either.

Honestly, I only use Netflix a couple times a month, too, except for the odd binge here or there. If I were to fall back on just one streaming service, it would (will?) probably be Prime because of the other benefits. I also ordered a PW2 tonight, my first ever eInk device, so in theory I could take advantage of the lending library, too, though I usually have my TBR thought out at least one or two books ahead.